Client server applications have been written in the past using several popular platforms like POWERBUILDER platform, VISUAL BASIC platform, VISUAL C++ platfrom and so on.—e.g. JAVA platform .Net.
In the prior art. while re-architecting, a user is typically faced with the choice of development platforms—whether to continue with the older platform or migrate to a completely new platform. Very often the choice is to also move to a newer platform, especially if the popularity of an older platform is on the wane.
Since, typically new functional requirements are not added during this process, users would like to automate this process—to reduce the cost of migration and to reduce the risk involved.
Commonly used approaches in the prior art to do this type of application migration are:                a) Document a mapping strategy—written informally (though systematically). Programmers follow this strategy and do the conversion by hand. Such a conversion is highly error prone, and the correctness depends on the programmers' ability. Also, such strategies are usually incomplete and not stated precisely enough and so a lot is left to the programmer to implement correctly. This method can provide no guarantees and relies heavily on testing.        b) Partial automated conversion based on textual patterns These are tool based implementations of some of the mappings that can be expressed as textual pattern search and replacement. While these are extremely effective where applicable, a large part of the problem cannot be solved in this manner and results in a partial solution only.        c) Conversions based on syntactic patterns These are based on knowledge of the syntax of the source programs. Conversion tools are written based on this approach. It is very effective when mapping is based on translating a program construct from one language to another. While this approach is far superior to the textual pattern based approach, it has serious limitations like:                    many mappings are not expressible at the level of syntactic transformations and require semantic analysis and transformation techniques            this approach is not at all suitable for making architectural changes                        
All these approaches address the problem of platform migration (to whatever extent) but do not provide an approach to making architectural changes.
In accordance with this invention a user will have the opportunity to re-architect the applications to avail one or more of the following benefits                achieve better scalability of the application        enable remote customers or business partners to access their applications        enable better interconnectivity between applications.        